W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:14:20 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040624211359.07ef4a30@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'Web Services Description'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At 09:21 AM 6/24/2004, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>I guess you didn't notice the careful use of "for example" in my note ;-).

I noticed. Bad example :-)
   jeff


>Ah the fun of standards politics ...
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Umit Yalcinalp
>To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Cc: Tom Jordahl ; 'Jonathan Marsh' ; 'Web Services Description'
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:32 PM
>Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>
>
>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>Same here; there is nothing called an "asynch" pattern IMO. As
>you Jonathan noted nothing precludes one from doing In-Out with
>asynch stuff .. in fact the use of WS-Addressing ReplyTo, for
>example, already allows that.
>
>So does WS-Message Delivery [1]. We are in favor of addressing this issue in
>a working group
>which is chartered to focus on addressing.
>
>--umit
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-messagedelivery-20040426/
>
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
>To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "'Web Services Description'"
><www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:20 AM
>Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>
>My vote was to NOT add anything to WSDL 2.0.
>
>
>--
>Tom Jordahl
>Macromedia Server Development
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 3:00 PM
>To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Tom Jordahl; David Orchard; Web Services
>Description
>Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>Let me make sure I understand your +1, and Tom's.  Do you agree that we
>should add an async pattern, though note that it requires an extension
>to provide addressing information, or that since we can't provide such
>an addressing mechanism we should not do the pattern at all?
>
>A further question on how this would impact the spec: As I understand it
>the In-Out pattern has nothing that precludes async.  I don't think our
>SOAP/HTTP binding itself prohibits this either.  So are we talking about
>a new SOAP MEP, a peer of the SOAP Request-Response Message Exchange
>Pattern [1] and it's binding to HTTP [2]?  If so that doesn't seem like
>a trivial task, nor one that could or should not be defined outside the
>3-part WSDL spec.
>
>[1]
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#singlereqrespmep
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapinhttp
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>
>On
>
>Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:53 AM
>To: Tom Jordahl; 'David Orchard'; 'Web Services Description'
>Subject: Re: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>+1 .. with sadness, but not for the lack of extra work.
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
>To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>; "'Web Services Description'"
><www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:26 PM
>Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>
>I think this ties in with my old quest to get the output and
>
>output/input
>
>MEPs removed from the spec OR specified in a way that we can have
>interoperable implementations.
>
>Supporting Async request/response requires the first service (or
>
>operation)
>
>to receive the address on where to send the response.  We can either
>
>specify
>
>this as a part of WSDL 2.0 and everyone will implement it the same
>
>way
>
>(and
>
>interoperate).  Or we can say nothing, and if you want to do it, you
>
>will
>
>have to implement something (WS-Addressing?) that not everyone may
>
>have.
>
>It makes me sad to say that at this point, saying nothing seems to
>
>be
>
>the
>
>way to go.
>
>--
>Tom Jordahl
>Macromedia Server Development
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>
>On
>
>Behalf Of David Orchard
>Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:33 PM
>To: Web Services Description
>Subject: RE: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>Without tracking down the reference, I think that I posted a
>
>response
>
>that
>
>said something like I don't think that any asynch binding requires
>
>the
>
>engagement of an addressing/delivery mechanism.  I'm reminded of our
>"operation name" discussions on this.  If we don't require the
>
>description
>
>of the operation name uniqueness mechanism in the WSDL, then I don't
>
>think
>
>that we need to spec the callback mechanism is WSDL.  Certainly
>
>something
>
>will have to be there, but that can be done in some other means.
>
>Simply
>
>that there is an expectation of one is sufficient.  If a service
>
>provider
>
>does not describe their callback mechanism in some out-of-band,
>
>extension,
>
>or f&p form, then it will be a pretty useless service.  Same way if
>
>a
>
>service provider can't distinguish between operations on it's end
>
>it's
>
>fairly useless.
>
>Caveat Servico Providemptor?
>
>Dave
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
>
>Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:09 AM
>To: Web Services Description
>Subject: Issue 130: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>
>[Reviving this thread for the telcon this week.]
>
>Sanjiva's mail below lays out the proposal on the table, and
>the primary
>issue with it - that it requires the use of an addressing
>
>mechanism,
>
>presumably an extension engaged in the WSDL and marked required.
>
>Have
>
>we learned anything new since January?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>
>On
>
>Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:46 PM
>To: Martin Gudgin; Philippe Le Hegaret; David Orchard
>Cc: Web Services Description
>Subject: Re: Asynch request/response HTTP binding needed
>
>
>"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>PAOS is slightly different. It has two MEPs, the one I
>
>think you are
>
>thinking of works as follows:
>
>Given nodes A and B:
>
>1. node A makes an HTTP GET to node B.
>2. Node B sends a SOAP Request as the HTTP response.
>3. Node A responds with a SOAP response in an HTTP POST to
>
>Node B.
>
>4. Node B responds with some HTTP response ( typically a
>
>web page )
>
>Gudge
>
>I understood what DaveO wanted as:
>
>1. node A makes an HTTP POST to node B with a SOAP Request and
>    information on where to POST the HTTP response to
>2. node B responds with something like 201 OK
>3. later on, node B makes an HTTP POST to node A with a
>
>SOAP Response
>
>4. node A responds with something like 201 OK
>
>DaveO??
>
>I like this a lot but unfortunately one needs WS-Addressing or
>
>something
>
>similar to send the "information on where to POST the HTTP
>
>response
>
>to".
>
>Sanjiva.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Umit Yalcinalp
>Consulting Member of Technical Staff
>ORACLE
>Phone: +1 650 607 6154
>Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com

Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 01:08:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT